Saturday, August 30, 2008

Submitted without comment.

SUZANNE’s concept of logical debate in her very own words:

Ontologically, an embryo is the same as an adult human. It's just at a different stage.

The intrinsic value of thing can never change. That's why it's intrinsic. If human adults are intrinsically valuable in adulthood, their value is the same at their beginning-- conception.

Did everyone get that? A fetus is exactly the same as a fully-grown person even though it’s different. So if we follow HER argument to its oh-so-logical conclusion (over a cliff) then the fetus’ differences merely reinforce its absolute sameness. By being different. All at the same time. Or something like that ... I think.

Oh, and apparently SUZANNE really likes the word "intrinsic". So there.


Anonymous said...

Let's paraphrase what she is saying:
Ontologically, an embryo is the same as a bunch of cells. It's just at a different stage.

The intrinsic value of thing can never change. That's why it's intrinsic. If mature cells are intrinsically valuable in maturity, their value is the same at their beginning-- mutation.

Renee said...

As a philosophy major, I feel qualified to laugh uproariously at that ridiculous series of statements.

Ti-Guy said...

If you mock her philosophical arguments...she'll just move on to scientific sophistry. Then religious sophistry. She can do that from any number of epistemological angles. The sophistry is the key.

You know, I'm starting to think SUZANNE is trying to convince herself not to choose abortion.

Just keep the knees together, Nitouche and you'll be fine.

CC said...

Curiously, for most fetus fetishists, the inviolable "intrinsic" value of that fetus seems to drop dramatically immediately upon birth. Then it's just a child and, consequently, not so interesting anymore.

It's funny how that works.

CC said...

By the way, the thought of someone claiming that the intrinsic value of something can never change is so howlingly amusing that it's almost impossible to refute without wetting one's pants.

Has SUZANNE never heard of "depreciation?" As in, you may have paid $20,000 for a car once upon a time but, now, its "intrinsic" value is considerably less. Really. Trust me.

And this year's Super Bowl that was held in Arizona on February 3, 2008? Tickets for midfield seats were worth, I'm guessing, several hundred dollars each the morning of February 3. They were worth exactly nothing the morning of February 4. See how that works?

Fuck, but that woman is stupid. Can someone call Social Services and have her kids taken away? For their own good, of course.

Paladiea said...

The "value" of the fetus is irrelevant to the fact that a woman has ownership rights to her body.

Like I've said before, the second I start seeing fetus fetishers advocate mandatory bone marrow donation (for those POOR KIDS WITH CANCER!) I'll take them seriously.

Nullig said...

So, if a woman dies in chldbirth, can the fetus be charged with murder?

Chimera said...

Nitouche: or Mie Touche (Touch-me-not). A hypocrite, a demure-looking pharisee. The French say, Faire la Sainte Nitouche, to pretend to great sanctity, or look as if butter would not melt in your mouth.

Ah, now I know why she ripped into you, Ti-Guy. She didn't like your pulling back the curtain on her.

SHE likes "intrinsic" the way Chretien liked "proof." And is just as eloquent with it.

Ooooh...nullig...what a wonderful question!

Ti-Guy said...

Nitouche is about the nicest thing I've called her. And, no, she did not like that. Not. One. Bit.

So, if a woman dies in chldbirth, can the fetus be charged with murder?

I don't think so. Manslaughter, maybe.

Renee said...

Er, say CC, price is not an example of intrinsic value - intrinsic values are nonderivative and wouldn't be dependent upon time or duration. For example, the goodness of saving somebody's life, if life has intrinsic value, wouldn't diminish over time. Conversely the price of a slave, however it may vary, doesn't change the fact that slavery is wrong by a infinite amount.

*cracking knuckles*

SUZANNE is attempting to use the traditional Kantian philosophical argument that people are good in and of themselves, above price, and she extends the argument to say that since this is the case for people, then a fetus is valuable for itself as well.

What she doesn't know is that a) it's a false argument because of the unstated premise that a fetus is a person - a mistake in ontological categorization; b) most philosophers have discarded the idea that intrinsic value actually exists as a meaningful concept anyway.

Noni Mausa said...


So, if you come in my house and willfully and maliciously drive over the acorns in my driveway, I can take you to small claims court for the value of the lumber I lost? (Or Big Claims Court, considering the cost of oak these days.)

This argument may have some value sometimes -- for instance, the killing of a lactating cow is different than the killing of her brother the steer, since you can expect to get a year of milk from the cow, and only a full freezer from the steer. The loss of a registered Charolais is different from the loss of her fertile fieldmate, a landrace Holstein.

And losing an embryo is different from losing the end of your thumb. I would cuss loudly at the thumb-truncation, but probably cry at a miscarriage.

But only because of the potential. How many people would want babies if they never grew up, but stayed small, helpless and demanding for their full lifespans? Cute makes up for a lot, but maybe not 75 years of diapers.

We value babies because of what they are, but mostly because of what they may become -- a process and an interaction, not a frozen instant of ipseity like a stop-motion sculpture.

The disconnect between valuing the potential and valuing the actual is a form of laziness. It is easy to value an unborn or newborn baby; they are all equally cute and this awakens our protectiveness and fascination with them.

But try valuing that baby ten years later who has just stolen the tires off your car? You'd better be lifting weights in preparation for that moral feat.

Noni Mausa said...

Oh, and topologically a doughnut and a coffee cup are the same shape. So can I have a doughnut and some coffee please -- hold the cup?

~sip, nibble, sip, nibble, sip ... ouch ouch ouch~

Renee said...

Yeah - hey, weird! The bread IS the bowl...